[kilgnad]

Rust is the bastard child of C++ and Haskell.

So it doesn't have the simplicity of C, it tries to give you as many abstractions as possible while still maintaining the zero cost philosophy.

I would say Rust is easier then C++ and easier haskell.

[ilovecaching]

Being easier than C++ or Haskell isn't really saying much at all. Neither of them have improved code readability and are notorious for their learning curve.

[kilgnad]

It is saying a lot because no other language offers that combination of performance and high level abstraction.

The speed of C++ with high level language features of haskell. And none of the safety pitfalls of C++ either. That's a lot.

When compared with haskell the benefits aren't clear. When compared with C++, rust is clearly better when viewed from strictly a language standpoint.

[ilovecaching]

But C++ is an outlier in systems software. Systemd is written in C. Grub is written in C. The Linux kernel is written in C. Firmware is written in C. Sure there are some kernels that use a bit of C++, but it's an outlier, not the norm. C++ never proved the is was so worthwhile to have a higher level language that we should drop everything and write C++. C++ only dominates in performance critical applications where there is a bridge to higher level languages and you're interfacing with software.

The strongest argument for Rust is its safety features. Abstractions have made C++ an unusable mess that even C++ developers complain about on a constant basis.

[kilgnad]

No C++ is considered systems software. I largely agree with you, except on the fact that C++ is an outlier in systems software. It's only an outlier for GNU linux.